Something very wrong with this proposal:
Travel restrictions could be imposed by America on 800,000 British citizens of Pakistani origin because of concerns about terrorism, it emerged yesterday.
The move has been prompted by fears that British Muslim men were behind several major bomb plots.
I sincerely hope the Government do the right thing and reject this move, even if it means abandoning the visa waiver scheme altogether.
Once a person has acquired British citizenship, whether by birth, marriage, or any other way, that is all that matters. As far as the visa waiver scheme is concerned, the US Government is not entitled to look behind the passport and impose restrictions based on who is carrying it. That is tantamount to creating different categories of British citizens, and we should not allow that.
Under our law, every British citizen is entitled to the same rights that attend upon citizenship. We should never accept a situation that creates a dividing line between our people, that deems some holders of the passport to be somehow less worthy than others.
The Telegraph reports that the Foreign Office is uneasy about the proposal, with a spokesman stating that:
“The Muslim community, including those of Pakistani origin, are an important part of our society and we would oppose strongly any proposal to single them out in response to the actions of terrorists”.
All well and good, but that is not the point. We should resist this proposal, not because the muslim community “are an important part of our society”, but because if they are British, they are entitled to the same rights and privileges as anyone else. In other words, even if they were an unimportant and insignificant part of our society, so long as they meet the citizenship test, that should be enough.
I would advise the Foreign Office to consider carefully what is at stake here; the deliberate devaluing of our citizenship by another country. I put it as high as that.
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Tarring them all with the same brush springs to mind. I agree, when I read the report my eyebrows were raised. So, all Pakistanis’ are terrorists are they?
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:37 pm
jailhouselawyer, in the eyes of the US, yes. All pakistanis are to be presumed terrorists until proven otherwise.
One can understand the concerns of the US Government, but this is not the way to deal with it. Better they pull out of the visa waiver and force us all to go for interview, and then they can demand more rigorous questioning for those they suspect.
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:40 pm
I agree totally.
There can be no sub-divisions of British citizenship but I imagine the US can impose this unilaterally. Also the mechanics of unilateral impostion I can’t work out.
Having said that,I can understand their reasoning: convicted and suspected terrorists have been Britons of Pakistani origin (however that is defined) and, therefore, to have tighter restrictions on them - as a group - reduces the risk to the US albeit it discriminates against the overwhelming majority.
I suspect there will be many who will agree with the US suggestion but I do not. The government must stand firm.
May 3rd, 2007 at 5:46 pm
For once, I disagree with you Bel. It would be wrong for us to discriminate in this way between our citizens, but America is entitled to protect herself as she sees fit.
Visitors to a country have only such rights as the hosts choose to grant. If they don’t like it, they don’t have to go. If I go to Saudi Arabia, for example, I can’t go to Mecca because my infidel presence would soil it. But a British Pakistani can. Where are the protests? Personally, I accept with perfect equanimity the Saudis’ right to regard me as filth.
The Americans are not saying all Pakistanis are terrorists. They are saying there is a higher than average risk that a British Pakistani is a terrorist and that this justifies an extra security step (the visa). The Dept of Homeland Security evaluates the risk from Britons of Pakistani descent as the highest they face. Are they to ignore it?
May 3rd, 2007 at 5:55 pm
Bel, whilst I agree that once they have the passport, that’s an end on’t, I feel the road to the passport should be far more stringent and the checks far-reaching. We are talking about a group from where the major terrorism directed at the English speaking west is coming from. This is not racism, this is not religionism, this is simple statistics.
May 3rd, 2007 at 6:59 pm
Tom, I see what you mean, but is the visa waiver scheme not based on the idea that citizens of participating countries may travel to each country without requiring a visa? I would have thought then that once you demonstrated that you were a citizen of a participating country (ie by showing a passport), that should be enough.
I know there are already exceptions to the scheme, eg those with criminal records, but these new rules, I don’t know.
I agree with you that visitors only have such rights as the hosts choose to grant, so I would think it better that the visa waiver scheme was scrapped and the Americans can then admit or refuse whomever they choose, using whichever criteria they wish. But to say ‘British citizens are welcome, except Pakistani descent’, that may be quite alright for America to say, but the British government should wonder at participating in such a scheme.
Like you, I accept with equanimity the Saudis’ right to treat me as filth. They don’t want me there, and I shall stay away, great all round. But I would submit that this is different. I think it is the presence of the visa waiver scheme that makes the American case different from the Saudi one.
James, I wholeheartedly agree with you about making the road to the passport far more stringent than it is. As Tom said, it is the risk of terrorism that has made America come to this decision, and frankly speaking, who can blame them? They probably would not have thought of this proposal if they had confidence in our passport checks. However, that leaves unanswered the question of British-born terrorists who qualify for citizenship by virtue of birth, and not naturalisation or other such means. One cannot help that situation. Not all the terrorists in this country came in from outside.
So yes, I agree with you and Tom. I agree that it is for a country to admit whomever they choose. However, I also believe that it is not right to do so under the visa waiver scheme, thereby creating different classes of British citizens of different value. It may be fine for the Americans, but I don’t think it is right for the British.
My solution? Abolish the visa waiver scheme and let everyone apply for a visa.
May 3rd, 2007 at 11:43 pm
The American immigration system has from time immemorial been extremely flawed. In law and on the ground. The only country where I have ever had problems at immigration is the US and that is carrying a US passport. The system has always been highly skewed towards who they want and no pains spared to make you feel unwelcome if you don’t fit a profile they are willing to welcome with open arms. I understand James’ point however the US can sometimes be a bit over-zealous in such matters and I am afraid this will be a thin wedge………
May 4th, 2007 at 12:30 am
I like to see you standing up for your citizens Bel, but shouldn’t the US be able to stand up for it’s rights?
Of course if they would simply dissolve the waiver and treat EACH British citizen the same (more checks, et al) then this wouldn’t be a problem?
I can’t say I like this turn, but I don’t see this as a British solvable problem.
May 4th, 2007 at 12:45 am
Lord Nazh, I agree with you. My solution would be to scrap the visa waiver scheme and let everyone apply for a visa.
May 4th, 2007 at 3:00 am
Exactly, Bel. If it applies to one British citizen, it applies to all of us.
I think it was the King of Denmark who said that all his subjects were equal and, if any of his Jewish subjects were required to wear yellow stars on their arms, then he and his family would so do and he expected all his loyal Danish subjects to follow his and his family’s example.
May 4th, 2007 at 3:47 am
[...] My mother endured the bombings of both Doncaster and London and would have recognised in Rachel a kindred spirit, not only in her resilience but in whom a woman knew who were the real enemy. Not the immediate criminals, whom we can, and will, readily defeat, but those who would, for the best possible reasons, steal everyone’s freedoms. [...]
May 4th, 2007 at 11:36 am
The website of the US Embassy to the United Kingdom informs me that, for tourist visas at least, the only waiver we get is for the fee. Is this a recent change, or merely an example of the remarkably poor standard of website design that seems to afflict the US federal government?
May 4th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
I agree with Bel, it is far too controlling and prejudicial. I wonder if there are grounds for these Muslims to appeal if they are refused admission,
May 4th, 2007 at 11:08 pm
Bel, you’re always thoughtful and always insightful. But on this occasion, I agree with Tom Paine. The USA will not open a visa waiver program with Yemen or Somalia any time soon. And for the same reasons, they have become distinctly uncomfortable with aspects of the British/American scheme.
I appreciate how insulting it must feel for Pakistani British to be tarred with the same brush… But the alternative is to go through the wasteful motions of hightened security screening of Methodists and Mormans too (for pseudo-equality sake) when we all know the problem is not there.
May 4th, 2007 at 11:47 pm
The USA will not open a visa waiver program with Yemen or Somalia any time soon.
And for good reason. For the same reason, they should scrap it for the UK.
May 5th, 2007 at 2:00 am
It’s dangerous to start selectively discriminating against people based on their ethnicity. Not a good idea.
But I’m inclined to agree with previous commenters that perhaps everyone should have to apply for a visa instead.
May 8th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
You can understand the US treating moslems with a certain amount of caution, mind you most of the “Glorious 19″ who did 9/11 were from Saudi.
Of course Saudi Arabia has lots of oil and nice weapons contracts with the US, so obviously they have to pick on someone moslem who wont be hitting back.
That said one would expect a decent UK government to defend its citizens to the hilt and be standing up to the US over this, oh hang on we have Blair.
Why do I think that many a Pakistani shopkeeper off to the US for his holidays will be having problems with Homeland Security.
May 10th, 2007 at 12:52 am
Bel
Intersting post. Sorry i didnt see this debate earlier. Very difficult issue and i can see both sides of the argument.